As an exercise in discernment, this series critiques the teaching associated with the Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP), Advanced Training Institute International (ATI), and specifically their founder, Bill Gothard. His teaching includes a myriad of distortions and this post addresses examples under the third of six main areas (listed at the end of Part 1): A misuse of the original languages and over-reliance on the wooden literalness of the King James Version (KJV).
Paul, addressing Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:14–15, says, “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures.” This passage is used by Mr. Gothard to defend a bizarre teaching of reading the Bible to babies who are still in their mother’s wombs. The word for “infancy” (brefos) can mean an unborn child, but more often it means a young child or infant. It is the same word used to describe baby Jesus as a “babe wrapped in swaddling clothes” (Luke 2:12), and also Peter’s admonition to “as newborn babes desire the sincere milk of the word” (1 Pet 2:2). Gothard builds a whole doctrine on the possible and rarer use of one word. Paul’s words to Timothy are most naturally taken to say, “Timothy, you grew up being taught God’s Word.” To read the Bible to unborn children is certainly a harmless practice, but is it biblical or even rational? Could one get spiritual benefit from an individual reading a Spanish Bible if they could not understand the Spanish language? The obvious answer is “no,” and this is consistent with Paul’s own logic concerning the Corinthians’ misuse of tongues. He says, “Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying?” (1 Cor 14:9). Furthermore, Nehemiah 8:1–3 suggests that reading Scripture aloud is only of value to those who can understand. Again, the contention here is not to waste ink railing against a harmless practice, but rather to illustrate the misuse of the original languages by Mr. Gothard and give evidence of the anti-intellectualism associated with his movement.
A second mishandling of the original languages can be seen in Mr. Gothard’s interpretation of the difference between “laws” and “commands” in Proverbs 6:20. He makes a distinction between the “commandments” of the father and the “laws” of the mother. Mr. Gothard then suggests the “commandments” of the father are general rules, while the “laws” of the mother concern the details of working out those general rules. For example, a father makes “a command” that he wants the family to have devotions every day. It’s the mother’s job, then, in Mr. Gothard’s view, to work out the laws or details as to how to make the father’s command happen. The Hebrew word for “commandment,” mitsvah, however, can mean a command, law, ordinance, or precept. Further, the Hebrew word for “law,” torah, can also mean a law, precept, or statute. In other words, from the perspective of the Hebrew language, these two words (torah and mitsvah) have the same meaning, and therefore can be used interchangeably. The use of these two words in the same verse is related only to variety, as is frequently the case with Hebrew poetry and parallelism. There is no justification for making the distinction Mr. Gothard does.
A third example relates to his identification of “taking up offenses” as one of the five causes of bitterness. His proof text is Psa. 15:3 in the KJV, specifically the last part of the verse I have italicized: “He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbor, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbor.” This is a total distortion of the meaning of this verse which is about not speaking evil of or blaming ones’ neighbor or friend. Further, his teaching here is related to a major criticism of his ministry as a whole, where his entire interpretation of scripture created a culture of victim blaming and silence.[1] In other words, it was specifically this teaching of “not taking up offenses” that taught people not to intervene in abusive situations if they weren’t the abuser or abusee.
A final example of his misuse of the original languages is seen in his preference for the KJV reading of 1 Cor 7:1b: “It is good for a man not to touch a woman” over the NIV’s more accurate rendering of the same verse (the ESV is similar here): “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” The translators involved with the NIV were more concerned to translate concept for concept, rather than word for word in order to get the meaning right. Mr. Gothard, however, is more interested in finding an easy proof text to keep boys and girls from “defrauding” one another and falling into pre-marital sex.[2] His approach ends up distorting the meaning of the text, and stealing natural, God-given freedom from dating or courtship relationships.
Regarding this same topic of sexual desire, he promoted the memorization of and meditation on Romans 6–8 as a primary way to fight sins, including lust. He gave personal testimony that, as a single man, the result of making Rom. 6:11 part of his life (“Reckon yourselves to be dead to sin”) was that when an attractive girl walked by him he was literally “dead” to sexual desire and lust. Mr. Gothard’s teaching here, however, conflates all attraction with lust. This is not fleeing lust (2 Tim. 2:22a) but repression that borders on Gnosticism.[3] Lust occurs rather when we desire to have sex with someone who belongs to someone else.[4] It also occurs when we care more about gratifying our desires than loving God and others, or when we objectify[5] another human created in the image of God, as in pornography.
Next week, we’ll look at examples under the fourth of
six headings: A misuse of “the weaker brother principle” and a distortion of
the believer’s freedom in Christ.
[1] Some have noted that this may also be why, in the 1980s scandal, Bill seems to have taken a blind eye to his brother carrying on multiple sexual relationships with women at a remote IBLP location. See http://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/02/the-scandal-1980/
[2] “Defrauding” is a KJV word he develops from 1 Thess 4:6 and defines as “raising desires in another person that you cannot righteously fulfill.” Combining this concept with the distorted rendering he gives 1 Cor 7:1b results in viewing any physical contact in the dating relationship as foreplay that will potentially lead to illicit sex.
[3] Gnosticism is an early church heresy that claimed secret spiritual insight and knowledge, and taught that body and the created material world were evil or inferior to the soul.
[4] Matthew 5:28.
[5] Or take pleasure in others objectifying themselves.